There's an article today at abc.com that looks at recent trends around net-based pay-for services and the smattering of paywalls from News Corp to the NYT that are up or threatening to be put up, and speculating that this could be the beginning of a trend. Of course, a YouTube video rental site and a few large publishers putting up paywalls will make zero difference to the "free internet" on their own. But if they're successful, it could spark emulation. But could this be a trend that could snowball enough to change the nature of the net?

Actually, people pay for the internet connection, and if they want to view something on the internet they need to pay additional cost for those contents then people would not understand and won't use internet as much as nowadays. They are going to screw themselves. They need to search for other ways of getting cash. There were already many cases that most of users of websites moved over to another similar websites which offered free service.

Actually, people pay for the internet connection, and if they want to view something on the internet they need to pay additional cost for those contents then people would not understand and won't use internet as much as nowadays.

Or else they'll start pirating content, just like they pirate movies, music, and apps now. Then you'll see the publishing/news industries trying to control copy/paste in order to combat 'content piracy'.

The real question is, do we still need the news media? I mean, if there's a huge earthquake in California (or whatever), it's going to be all over the internet in a very short time.

I think you got a good point. And i think that in this way; Are the contents on the news media thought by people worthy to pay for view? I don't really know. Maybe not as much as the content providers think. :p

But In regard to your example, I don't think internet gossip would contain trustworthy information on how strong it was, how much damage was occurred and etc compared to that of news media. Yes in my humble opinion, we DO still need news media. Some people would still prefer it over internet gossips. Some people would want to know more in-depth information on the happenings. We need both!

"Actually, people pay for the internet connection, and if they want to view something on the internet they need to pay additional cost for those contents then people would not understand and won't use internet as much as nowadays.

Or else they'll start pirating content, just like they pirate movies, music, and apps now. Then you'll see the publishing/news industries trying to control copy/paste in order to combat 'content piracy'.

The real question is, do we still need the news media? I mean, if there's a huge earthquake in California (or whatever), it's going to be all over the internet in a very short time. "

It will be all over the internet, because actual news organizations are there on the scene reporting it. Sorry but you have this the other way around. It is the media leeches, the bloggers and such that could simply disappear without notice.

Actually, people pay for the internet connection, and if they want to view something on the internet they need to pay additional cost for those contents then people would not understand and won't use internet as much as nowaday

Sp by this logic, since you're already paying for the gas and the car insurance for your car you would expect the grocery store to you give you what you want for free?